England should not be multi-cultural for several reasons:
- The cultural ideals of many parts of the third world are completely at odds with our own, not least the attitude of parts of north Africa and the Middle East to women.
- Cultural attitudes that do not lie in parallel will inevitably lead to violent conflict
The Commission for Racial Equality is quite right (for once) that allowing parents to choose a school and, even, run a school, will lead to segregation. Miss Anon (a co-author on this site) said to me the other day, that despite inspections and the National Curriculum, the influence of cultural attitudes within a school run in a non-English cultural majority area will inevitably lead to further segregation.
It is, in fact, inevitable that if we do not try to assimilate foreign cultures (let’s not beat around the bush, that’s what non-English culture in England is), then we will soon not have a single England — rather mini nations within England. And if those areas become significant enough, might we not have separatist movements spring up in the not-to-distant future? It’s almost a reverse-zionism for non-Jews!
Anyone who knows me will tell you that one of my virtues is a complete belief in a policy of colour-blindness when it comes to ethnicity. I’ve said before that I have many friends of a non-white colouring. I don’t say these things because I think it qualifies me in some way to speak on this subject, rather to illustrate that the colour of someone’s skin makes vehemently, absolutely no difference to their behaviour, attitudes or politics.
The BBC, left-wing do-gooders and the proponents of quotas, positive discrimination etc. are failing to notice what needs to happen. Talking of police treading carefully because of ‘community relations’ is missing the argument entirely. The police, of course, should not be entering people’s homes and beating them up (if that’s what happened), but neither should the ‘community’ be treated as a single group, either by the police or the media.
There will be people of all ethnicities in the area with a complete range of attitudes. Thankfully, not all Muslims or coloured people think the same way as George Galloway.
What I’m trying to say is that the debate must move on from colour, it must move on from place of birth — neither of these are relevant. Instead we should focus on the English culture and see what can be done about ghettoisation, stigma, Muslim academic underperformance, fundamentalism and, most importantly, cultural diversity.
When I talk about English culture, too, I am not talking about some historic picture-postcard scene of gentele folk sitting around a sunny village green eating scones and cream tea while watching cricket. No, I am talking about attitudes towards working, freedom from oppression and looking out for one-another. English culture has evolved and will continue to evolve. It will, hopefully, absorb the finer points of foreign cultures (let’s hope we all start having large families and Latin-style low-key family parties soon), but it should remain a culture unique to England, not one of several cultures within this country.
I intended this to be a short post, but I have noticed something about my non-stop use of the phrase “English culture”. It is my belief that in the long-term, if the EU works out the way it should, there will eventually be a European culture. This isn’t abhorent to me, but it must be reached naturally and by following a process of evolution. There will be much opposition to it not least from the right of my party and from the left of Labour, but that’s what the UK has signed us up to and, while we remain the EU, we must accept that this is the direction it should take. The choice is (a) a path to a European culture or (b) England leaving the EU (and preferably the UK).
In one sentence, ethnic diversity is neither a bad thing nor a good thing (it’s irrelevant) — cultural diversity is a bad and dangerous thing.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Well, I thought it was a good post to start with but come on the EU is an attempt to create a new soviet union! Its about taking away democracy from the states of Europe, many of its laws are desided behind closed doors.
You seem a bit confused, on one hand you are an English nationalist in terms of support for an English parliament and full ‘independence’, on the other hand you seem favourable to a common European culture, how can you reconcile these contradictions?
June 15th, 2006 at 7:26 am
I can’t see a positive pan-European culture emerging from the bureaucratic morass of the EU. As you allude, cultures aren’t created from outside; they emerge. It will not be a state that brings about a pan-European culture, but perhaps the dissolution of it might.
The EU state is doing everything it can to destroy the good stuff about each of the cultures of each of its states and keeping the bad stuff.
I think I’d rather have England go it alone (or be the 51st United State) than stay where it is right now in relation to Scotland S.S.R. and Wales S.S.R., as well as its relation to the greater Soviet Union.
I maintain that the EU is supported by so many politicians because a) it gives their vampiric careers more longevity, and pays a great pension and b) they can do anything they want to without the bother of being accountable to those pesky voters.
June 15th, 2006 at 8:32 am
LOL
I didn’t mean to imply that I’m for the EU — good God no!
But if the EU could be reformed so that it had a US-style constitution and genuine democracy, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it in quite the same way.
And Dave, the way I reconcile that, is that I don’t necessarily think England historically needed independence or a Parliament. It is the unbalanced way in which Scottish and Welsh MPs get to vote on English laws that upsets me! As James implies, Scotland and Wales are socialist to the core, and such absolute politics which is at odds with our English tendencies, will always lead to separatist feelings.
I believe, now, that England would do better as an independent country. If Europe could be made into a democratic Union, then I wouldn’t have any ideological problem with England joining. As I think this is highly unlikely, though, I support UKIP’s position on EU membership.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
What will become of “European Culture” when Turkey is admitted into the EU, will we remain Christian or will we become a Muslim superstate? I think it would be far better for Britain to regain it’s sovereignty and come out of the EU asap. We have far better friends across the Atlantic and along with the old commonwealth countries we can ensure Britain’s future prosperity and maintain our democratic independence.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I would like the EU also if it was more like the US. Although I don’t like the way the US is a two party political system, surely population of that size needs a wider choice.
Anyway, the current EU is nothing like that really.
If you think England would be better without the Scottish and Welsh, but then England, Scotland and Wales join the EU, whats the difference? they will still be able to influence us with their socialism.
Should we not remember that Scotland used to vote Conservative in a big way 50 years ago, and it was only after the closing of much of the traditional industry such as the ship yards that has pissed them off?
June 15th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Do you mean the constitution the US has, or the one the Supreme Court thinks it has?
The current corrupt federal government is certainly not one I would like to replicate.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
I don’t dislike Scotland and Wales because their political decision making is not the same as ours, I just dislike their tendency to vote for English laws that are not going to be implemented in their constituency and which, in some cases, have been positively refused by the Scottish Parliament in advance.
I believe in democracy, I really do, and to say that we shouldn’t join a superstate (either European or American) because of the perceived political tendencies of other nations is, of course, in my interests, but is not democratic. I genuinely believe that a pan-European nation could argue the case for right-wing politics just as well as a pan-English one. But that is really, really long-term thinking and, as I’ve said more than once, the EU is not the solution.
When I say that I don’t oppose the creation of larger nations in principle, it is not to say that I can see a way of it working, just that in theory (and on a blank slate) a single democratic global nation would be far better than fragmented, culturally distinct nations.
As that’s never going to happen and, because there are so many primitive cultures, it’s rather moot that I said it.
That’s the point that Mr Salkeld has picked up on: The EU probably cannot cope with a massive primitive-religion’s population. The EU cannot seriously consider allowing a nation to join that suppresses one of it’s indigenous cultures, can it? (Oh, it already allows England to be treated that way!).
Maybe, secretly, the reason us Tories like the idea of Turkey joining the EU is because it will expose the principle lie that underpins the EU — that Europe is ready for a pan-continental nation. As I see it there are three ways out of the EU:
1) Democratically electing a party to power that wishes to leave the EU or managing to lobby for a referendum that leads to exit before the right to elect a government with the power to do that is taken by Brussels;
2) Turkey joining, the Euro collapsing or both causing the EU-project to be scrapped;
3) EU Civil War.
Obviously, (3) is the worse-case scenario. There are two ways the EU can survive:
1) A EU culture emerges
2) Culture within EU member nations remains strong enough that internal migration does not cause internal conflict.
Whatever happens I don’t think the EU is necessary for England’s future.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“When I say that I don’t oppose the creation of larger nations in principle, it is not to say that I can see a way of it working, just that in theory (and on a blank slate) a single democratic global nation would be far better than fragmented, culturally distinct nations.
I would oppose that on principle as well as on the basis it is impractical. A central government is bound to become corrupted in the same way the closed nation-state has become. The best guarantor of liberty is to keep the individual sovereign and allow them to confer that sovereignty upon the state of their choice (and fully renounce all previous ties and obligations to other states).
As for the European Union, it is not merely their politics that is at odds with our own but their concept of liberty. We have a tradition of individual rights whereas they have a tradition of collectivised rights which is entirely incompatible.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Previously, I thought your reason for supporting an English parliament was probably the reasons you say in this post, thats why I suggested the alternative of ending devolution but you said you wouldn’t be happy with that either.
If your only problem is the over representation of Scots and Welsh there are surely other ways to solve the problem than the disbandment of the UK.
I don’t understand how you can say not joining a superstate because we don’t like the political tendencies of the other nations is not democratic. If 10 nations vote for communists and we are voting for liberalism, joining their union is going to have a severe impact on our democractic choices.
If we want to join a superstate joining one which is most compatible with our long term political positions is clearly important.
I must say your view that an ideal world would be controlled by a One world government and of a single culture I find very supprising, I thought you were a live and let live kind of guy, freedom of cultural expression is important for everyone. Thats why I don’t like multi-cultualism its not really about different groups of people living their own way, its an attempt to blend all world cultures into one, be they good or BAD.
The only way for distinct cultures to exists is for each to have its own space.
I think the EU will end in a mess, quite possibly the riots of last December in France will be repeated over the entire EU, and then the populations of the EU will have an ‘overreaction’ to the freedom of movement rules that will get exploited by trouble makers.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
I’m not saying that I actively want a single world culture, just that people as a group are less likely to attack each other if they share a single culture.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with a reversal of devolution, I just don’t think it can happen as the Scots are not going to vote for it.
The EU will end in a mess.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
The Scots will not vote for an end in the current devolution settlement, but thats because it is unfair and biased in their favour. If they were presented with fair choices such as, Scottish tax payers having to pay more for all the extra costs of their parliament and extra socialism such as free OAP care, extra support for students etc. A return to the previous settlement. Or full independence.
That would be a real choice, and I think they may think twice about it.
They certainly couldn’t cope with the soviet model they use now without English support, and in their hearts they know it.
They would probably vote for full independence, and then their economy hits serious trouble and the Conservatives make a Scottish return.